Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87- Export refunds - Sanction applied following a decision to recover a refund that has become final - Possibility of re-examining the decision imposing a sanction)
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 11(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57) ("Regulation No 3665/87").
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between ED & F Man Sugar Ltd ("ED & F Man Sugar") and the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Hamburg-Jonas ("the Hauptzollamt") concerning the sanction imposed by the latter on ED & F Man Sugar, as provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation No 3665/87, following decisions to recover refunds granted in accordance with Article 11(3).
The first, second, third and fifth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2945/94 are worded as follows:
The first, second, third and fourth subparagraphs and the first sentence of the fifth subparagraph of Article 11(1) and Article 11(3) of Regulation No 3665/87 are worded as follows:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.